Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Comment by Scarpia
- Statement by non-party moved from arbitration page. --Tony Sidaway 09:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, Pudgenet did not know who Barry was until last month, when I pointed him to Barry's alternate life on Perlmonks. You really just don't know enough to be making these sorts of accustations, so you should really try to stay within what you know. It's pretty clear that you have an emotional reaction to this because you two don't get along, but don't confuse that with actual knowledge. Scarpia 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[4] [5] [6]. Barry had already caused problems before Pudgenet showed up [7], after which he continued revert warring [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] and attempting to embarrass Randal Schwartz and O'Reilyl Media [18] [19] [20]. Unsucccessful the actions of several editors, Barry decided to declare the entire Perl article as biased [21], which several editors removed. Barry then removed Perl from the Good Article list. Pudgenet had very little to do with any of that, and most of the things of which you accuse him happened in over Talk places, which didn't really affect the editing of Perl. I think you may have skipped most of this history is deciding Barry is "reasonable" and "admirable". It was certainly happening before Pudgenet and I got involved. Scarpia 18:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tiobe popularity data
Earle Martin wrote of his removal of "non-encyclopedic material."
Earle, I know you've read my comments on that, in which I link to scholarly material that cites Tiobe, because you've responded to them. And I've always welcomed qualifications as strong as anyone wishes to make them. Yet you still call the Tiobe data non-encyclopedic and want it excluded. It's fine for you to still feel that way, but I don't think your opinion outweighs everything I've presented, and the Tiobe data should be restored.
Also note that the addition of the Tiobe information had been mediated and agreed to, but it was reverted again. The mediator actually watered down my wording of the agreed to version. -Barry- 03:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- This has been discussed on the Perl page and part of mediation. The mediator, however, noted we are completely starting over. This would better be discussed as part of the ongoing mediation. Steve p 00:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Mediation stalled shortly before my RfA (with you trying to get me to drop everything I want, me not wanting to, and nobody else participating), and it's now officially been declared failed and closed. -Barry- 01:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Been there, done that. Unfortunately, some Perl issues have slowly crept into this ArbCom case and might have taken some arbitrators by surprise, but I hope they'll decide on them as well as the Pudgenet-specific stuff. It's pretty much related anyway. I already raised the issues on the evidence page. -Barry- 02:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Then start a separate arbitration about such things. This RfAr has absolutely nothing to do with those things. This is against me alone, and I have not been involved in editing Perl for what, four weeks now? Since everyone else involved with your disputes in Perl were never notified about this RfAr, it is entirely unreasonable for the arbitrators to rule on those issues behind their backs, without their input, and it shocks me that you would hope they would do such an irresponsible and unfair thing. Pudge 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
(outdenting) Ahh, trying to drag a content dispute into arbitration. Sorry, I will not be continuing this discussion here. I will continue to work on improving the Perl article. I hope you'll decide to do the same. Steve p 02:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I won't be either. If Barry will remove his comment from the RfA then I'll remove mine, but I won't otherwise be drawn into it here. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 14:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
